The Electronic Frontier Foundation and the ACLU of California joined forces with California State Sen. Joel Anderson (R-Alpine) on Tuesday to testify in favor of S.B. 712, a bill that would have allowed drivers to cover their license plates when parked in order to protect their travel patterns from private companies operating automated license plate readers (ALPRs).

The Senate Transportation and Housing Committee heard testimony on how private ALPR companies are collecting massive amounts of data on innocent people's driving patterns and selling it for profit. Despite learning how this data may be misused to target vulnerable communities by the federal government, a Democratic majority voted to kill the bill 6-5.

The bill would have adjusted current law, which allows drivers to cover their entire vehicles (for example with a tarp), so that a driver can cover just a portion: the plate. Police would still have the ability to lift the cover to inspect the plate, and since the measure only applied to parked vehicles, it would not have affected law enforcement's ability to collect data on moving vehicles.

My name is Dave Maass, and I represent the Electronic Frontier Foundation, a sponsor of S.B. 712. EFF is a non-profit organization that defends civil liberties as the world becomes a more digital place.

I am a researcher who investigates police technology. My previous work has resulted in agencies fixing insecure surveillance cameras, a federal fraud investigation into child-safety software, and increased disclosure of misuse of police databases.

Since November, not a week has gone by when I haven’t been asked the same questions: How do we protect our communities from being targeted? More chillingly, they ask: Do we need to start building a new Underground Railroad?

I immediately think about the massive amount of data being collected by automated license plate readers operated by private companies: billions and billions of data points mapping out our travel patterns. These companies rent this data to law enforcement but they also sell it to the private sector. Lenders examine travel patterns before approving a loan. Insurers look at travel patterns before quoting a rate. Collections agencies use it to hunt down debtors.

A user could easily key in the address of a mosque, an immigration law clinic, an LGBT health center to reveal whole networks of vulnerable communities. A user could program the system to identify associates and get real time alerts about a driver’s whereabouts.

In 1972, voters agreed that we have an inalienable right to pursue and obtain privacy. Your predecessors in the legislature explicitly stated this amendment would protect us from computerized mass surveillance by police and private companies.

SB 712 allows Californians to cover our plates when our vehicles are lawfully parked. This is a balanced approach that would not affect how police use ALPR technology to monitor moving vehicles.

Today you are voting on whether we can exercise our constitutional right to privacy against advanced surveillance systems logging our travel patterns. Thank you for this opportunity. I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Some of these senators acknowledged the threat to our privacy caused by ALPR companies and suggested that different, perhaps more robust legislation was necessary. EFF looks forward to taking these senators at their word and pursuing further privacy protections next session.

State agencies in California are collecting and using more data now than they ever, and much of this data includes very personal information about California residents. This presents a challenge for agencies and the courts—how to make government-held data that’s indisputably of...

Sharing your personal fitness goals—lowered heart rates, accurate calorie counts, jogging times, and GPS paths—sounds like a fun, competitive feature offered by today’s digital fitness trackers, but a recent report from The Washington Post highlights how this same feature might end up revealing not just where you are, where...

Protecting the highly personal location data stored on or generated by digital devices is one of the 21st century’s most important privacy issues. In 2017, the Supreme Court finally took on the question of how law enforcement can get ahold of this sensitive information. Whenever you use a cell phone...

Federal courts must end the excessive secrecy surrounding law enforcement surveillance orders, a U.S. Senator urged in a letter on Friday. This secrecy block’s the public’s ability to fully understand how police conduct this surveillance, the lawmaker wrote.
The letter, sent by Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Or), asks federal courts...

EFF Senior Staff Attorney Jennifer Lynch and Investigative Researcher Dave Maass last night received the First Amendment Coalition’s 2017 Free Speech & Open Government Award in recognition for their work bringing transparency and accountability to law enforcement’s collection and use of automated license plate...

Step onto any city street and you may find yourself subject to numerous forms of police surveillance—many imperceptible to the human eye.A cruiser equipped with automated license plate readers (also known as ALPRs) may have just logged where you parked your car. A cell-site simulator may be capturing your cell-phone...

Law enforcement officers in Washington, D.C. violated the Fourth Amendment when they used a cell site simulator to locate a suspect without a warrant, a D.C. appeals court ruled on Thursday. The court thus found that the resulting evidence should have been excluded from trial and overturned the defendant’s...

Now that California’s Broadband Privacy Bill, A.B. 375, is headed for a final vote in the California legislature, Comcast, Verizon, and all their allies are pulling out all the stops to try to convince state legislators to vote against the bill. Unfortunately, that includes telling legislators about made-up problems the...

San Francisco, California—The Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) and the ACLU won a decision by the California Supreme Court that the license plate data of millions of law-abiding drivers, collected indiscriminately by police across the state, are not “investigative records” that law enforcement can keep secret. California’s highest court...